Jump to content
Ron

My latest project

Recommended Posts

I suppose Ron wants a Miller taillamp aswell now......

 

Cheers,

 

Lex

 

Good question! Is this a Lucas MT210 or a Miller...?

 

Schermafbeelding%202016-01-09%20om%2022.32.07.png

 

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% Miller, I had this part, but not anymore.....

 

WP_001498.jpg

 

WP_001495.jpg

 

But the other part of the lamp I have maybe only seen once on a bike, very rare!! normally Panthers and Rudges used the very long, about 7" lamp, that goes across the number plate holder, google it, and it will come up.

 

Cheers,

 

Lex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron

I did not think my comments would stir up such a hornets nest, but hopefully it helps push the rebuild forward.

A bit off the thread but regarding the clearance for the points on WD/D I was wondering if the design of the engine was unchanged from 1936/7. Around that time the Lucas Magdyno was redesigned. The earlier MN/1 Magdyno which was equipped with a 3 brush dynamo, the MN/1 was fitted with ring cam point set up, I suspect with the change to a simpler 2 brush dynamo set up with a CVC regulator there also a change to face cam MO/1 magneto. I have not got access to a MN/1 magneto to measure the difference between the two types, but it I sure the difference in overall length would make access to the points on WD/D much easier.

Also to be considered is the limitation of the height of the s.v. engine. One way round it would involve a major redesign of the crankcases, which would prove expensive, new tooling etc. so they stuck with the existing set up. Other manufacturers got around this problem by fitting an extended inlet manifold to move the carb. clear of the magdyno. There was not the same problem with the case of o.h.v. engines with the carb. being mounted higher. Note on the BSA the Magdyno is mounted higher relative to the chain case so the access to the points is not so difficult.

 

Back to the thread - Regarding the Miller Magdyno the operation of the Miller dynamo is set up differently to the Lucas EL3 dynamo. I have included notes taken from vincent.com website.

The Miller dynamo as originally wired, work differently then Lucas. Millers have three states of operation:

1. Output voltage is too low

2. Output voltage is about correct

3. Output voltage is excessively high.

In the first state the armature voltage is impressed directly across the field coil. Assuming that the cut-out relay is closed this would also put the battery across the field coil. If the voltage is low enough then the battery will be disconnected (as in start up conditions). This will maximize the current flowing through the field coil, implying a maximized magnetic field.

In the second state, where the system has equilibrated (sort of), the current through the field coil is decreased but not to zero. There is a resistor that is inserted in the field coil circuit. The resistor, which is the second winding on the field coil (wound non-inductively) is the mechanism for decreasing the field coil current.

The third state has no current flowing through the field coil. Without this current there can be little or no output voltage.

While this system sounds good, in practice it barely works. It is a fragile design that typically has been abandoned for the simplier Lucas type voltage control (states 1 and 3 only). I am not aware of any solid state regulators that will support the Miller regulation design,

I am no expert on electrics but I think it would be possible it could be easily set up to run as a direct lighting set in a manner similar to the Royal Baby/Flying Flea, where the dry battery in the headlamp was to power the parking light and tail light only when the engine was not running.

Is it not possible that the same battery could used to to excite the field coil, to enable the the dynamo to run the lighting load, but it would be necessary that once the dynamo starts charging it would be necessary to switch out the dry battery to avoid charging it, so may be a further cut out was installed elsewhere, maybe the headlight.

 

The use of Miller Headlight & Tail Light would indicate that the Miller Company supplied the electrical equipment. Another piece of the puzzle nearly solved - just finding the bits - Great.

 

Cheers SteveL.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem like a hornet's nest to me, simply an on-line brainstorming session which is just what internet forums should be about ! I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

 

The Miller Dyno-Mag doesn't seem to have been a fantastic bit of kit. Probably designed to circumvent Lucas trade names ('Magdyno') and patents. It seems odd that some rather expensive makes such as HRD, Velocette and Scott used Miller equipment and yet Joe Lucas became the butt of all the jokes.

 

Visually, the Miller unit does resemble the pre-1937 ring-cam Lucas MS1. I'm sure that you're correct in dating the change to the same point as the switch to the CVC regulated dynamos. It would seem to be the change to the face cam design which brought with it the taller end cover.

 

There remains the fact that WD/Ds had MO1 magdynos and we still don't really know much about their specific points covers.

 

This is an April 1935 dated Magdyno marked MSLV-O with 3rd brush dynamo on a Norton ES2. It certainly shows increased clearance between points cover and inner chaincase when compared with the MO1 but it wouldn't be correct for the Experimental RE as they ceaased supply in 1937.

 

P8301019_zpslpw31ldy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys and I'm really enjoying this too! In just a few days we have thrashed out my complete electrical equipment requirement.

 

I think my headlamp is sorted. And as Jan worked out a while ago, the switch is handlebar mounted which can just be seen in one of the blow ups from Jan's original pictures.

 

I just need that mag and tail lamp!!

 

However another major set back has arisen! When I offered up my original tool box to see how I might fix it. I discovered that the box was too tall.......Or rather that the frame is too short! So with Jan performing some of his photography trickery we have worked out that the frame is extended up by 1 1/2" from the red line to the yellow line here.

 

So a total strip down will be required to modify the frame WHEW! Despite that I will still feel a lot happier if I find the Miller parts to make the whole project worthwhile..... In for a Penny in for a Pound!!

 

Ron

Schermafbeelding 2016-01-06 om 20.58.35.jpg

Edited by Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, so they did raise it at the back as well as extend the forks ? That's only going to exacerbate the short mainstand problem though. Is the toolbox a standard 'C' item ?

 

Where will you have to extend the tubes ? Will it require re-working of the lugs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The front frame shouldn't be a problem Rik. I can jig the frame to stop it moving, and get my engineer (Dave) to make some hollow spigots of the correct sizes to let into the front and saddle tubes at anywhere convenient along their length. I figure that the tank tube needs to be cut between the rear tank mount and the saddle nose mount and the required size spigot let in. I expect that the frame will need to be removed and reassembled in the jig to get the three spigots in place before welding commences. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it and Dave will know that the frame must stay true and all engine plate holes must remain correct.

 

The rear frame saddle spring tubes will also have to be cut and shut and their angles altered slightly at somewhere near the wheel spindle lugs.......Again we'll cross that bridge!!!

 

The bottom run of the frame doesn't appear to be altered but will probably cut the feet off and let a piece in to extend the stand, as raising the forks has had an adverse affect on the stand which I have tried to overcome by welding on feet extensions, but it's not that good.

 

Apart from being a trifle miffed at 3 months work which includes my nicely fitting mudguard and carrier and paintwork up the Swanee, I'm strangely excited about the challenge. Ron

Edited by Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm strangely excited about the challenge. Ron

 

"Strange and excitable" would be a good description too ! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron, so they did raise it at the back as well as extend the forks ? That's only going to exacerbate the short mainstand problem though. Is the toolbox a standard 'C' item ?

 

No Rik, if you stretch the frame below the headstock, the bottom of the frame drops again, and this will allow Ron to keep the standard mainstand! Please klick the link below to see the overlay that illustrates this theory. The toolbox is indeed the standard Royal Enfield toolbox, as used on many different models from that period.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vm9gmh196afipkd/comparison8.mov?dl=0

 

Where will you have to extend the tubes ? Will it require re-working of the lugs ?

 

No lugs on this frame Rik, all welded joints. In my overlays I can clearly see that the lightweight tubes are longer than the tubes on a WD/D, but the angles appear to be identical. So adding spigots of the correct length should do the trick...

 

Jan

Edited by rewdco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Rik, if you stretch the frame below the headstock, the bottom of the frame drops again, and this will allow Ron to keep the standard mainstand! Jan

 

Of course. Just got my head round Jan's quote above. So all this cutting and shutting to frame and forks does not alter the ground clearance one bit. It must purely have been done to give some more engine clearance under the tank and, or for rider height. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiously enough, these frame modifications weren’t intended to add some ground clearance, as can be seen in my last overlay. If you stretch the forks upwards, and the front and saddle frame tubes and upper rear frame tubes downwards, all you get is a raised saddle and petrol tank, while the engine is still in its original position. Obviously the ground clearance isn’t affected… Makes you wonder why they took the trouble… Did the longer stroke (90 instead of 77mm) require a taller frame? Ron didn’t have much problems fitting the engine to a standard frame… but Ron’s engine has a steel cylinder and cylinder head. Was the aluminium head higher? But even if it is, the first LW (#101) was first delivered with a steel cylinder… Or was it just an easy way to make this small and light WD/D motorcycle a bit taller, without adding too much weight? It looks as if a low centre of gravity (“low” engine position, for increased stability) was considered more important than increased ground clearance…

 

Another thing that is worth studying now that we know that the frame has to be modified is the steering head geometry (rake and trail). And although the fork length will obviously affect the steering head geometry, this steering head geometry is completely independent of the geometry of the rest of the frame. I have added two lines to the WD/D and lightweight factory photographs to visualise these parameters, and although the accuracy of my sketch is not spot-on, these lines clearly show that Enfield “radically” changed both values (rake and trail) when they designed the lightweight! The rake decreases from 30° (WD/D) to 25° (LW), and the trail decreases from approximately 4” to approximately 2”. The effect of this modified geometry will be a more manoeuvrable and easier steering motorcycle, with less high speed stability. No doubt these are the handling characteristics that you would expect on a military motorcycle. In order to obtain this geometry, the steering head was tilted 5° and now makes a 40° angle with the downtube instead of 45° (WD/D).

 

Jan

 

Schermafbeelding%202016-01-11%20om%2018.31.33.png

 

Schermafbeelding%202016-01-11%20om%2018.37.57.png

Edited by rewdco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey Jan! I'll definitely draw the line at cutting the headstock off to increase the angle by 5 degrees.

 

I've been doing some more investigation checks again today by offering up the toolbox to the left side, and I'm sure the saddle tube must be extended by the same 1 1/2" as the front tube.......Unless they fitted a slightly shorter tool box.........Most unlikely!

 

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you will know, we're still a bit unsure about the oil tank cum air filter that was used on the lightweight. Enfield started using "steel wool type" air filters in 1939, but apart from the decal with cleaning instructions, these civilian air filters look completely different...

 

In post #29 I explained a possible theory on how the system could have been. But Ron had a better idea, and I'm also quite convinced now that the air enters the filter through the louvres, is filtered somehow and then simply goes through a straight tube through the oil tank into the carburetor on the right hand side. I wonder if there was a thin pancake filter just behind the louvres...?

 

Schermafbeelding%202016-01-12%20om%2020.55.38_1.png

 

But today, while I was browsing through some photographs in my WD Royal Enfield Register, I found an interesting picture of a WD/D that had been civilianized after the war and that had been kept in a shed since the 1950's. Imagine my surprise when I noticed that this WD/D had the remains of a "box" that looks an awful lot like our mystery air filter / oil tank! And it was fitted at the same position too!

 

Schermafbeelding%202016-01-12%20om%2019.58.35.png

 

Obviously this "box" was not an oil tank or an air filter, but it's the same shape and it appears to have the same dimensions! So maybe somebody in Enfield's prototype department simply modified an existing (tool)box...? Problem is that I've never seen such a toolbox in an Enfield catalogue... Then Ron found out that it's a BSA Bantam toolbox... but Bantams are post war, so Enfield can't have converted one of these in 1940...? Could these toolboxes also have been used in the late 1930's I wonder? Or is it just a silly coincidence?

 

Jan

Edited by rewdco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased to say that my previous post has inspired my friend and fellow WD Royal Enfield enthusiast Arnaud from France to make a sketch of yet another possibility for the oil tank cum air filter assembly. It may be interesting to take another look at the M.E.E. test report (see also #91):

 

Schermafbeelding%202016-01-09%20om%2009.04.38.png

 

In my previous sketch I couldn't really find a position where there could have been a hole "drilled at the base, presumably to allow any water to drain away", but at the same time acting as a bypass. Now Arnaud has come up with another design, which not only looks very nice and simple, but also provides a location for this hole:

 

Schermafbeelding%202016-01-15%20om%2020.10.28.png

 

Thanks very much for joining this brain-storming session Arnaud, I think we're getting very close with this one!

 

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed a thin wire mesh sandwich can be almost on the outside of the tank. Thanks for joining in Arnaud. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Kostas? Well I built the bike up before I'd realised that the frame on this experimental bike had also been modified. But since I was going through the DVLA registration procedure with imminent inspection I had to put the project temporarily on hold.

 

Inspection completed and registration received so I've now totally stripped the bike again and the frame is with my engineer for some modifications to make it about 1 1/2" taller. (Then the rear part will have to be tweaked also).

 

In the mean time, I've been on the hunt for a 'Miller' Dynomag. I got back from a full day trip to London yesterday with a mag (dynamo to follow by post).

 

I've also acquired a Miller 35E tail lamp and correct head lamp to which I've added a medallion badge.

 

I just need the frame to be sorted before I can crack on again. Ron

EXP DC 329.jpg

EXP DC 335.jpg

EXP DC 337.jpg

EXP DC 345.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now the frame is back. So time to start all over again. Ron

EXP DC 351.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see that your project restarted, keep the pictures coming Ron!

Any progress with that special oil tank assembly?

Kostas :laugh:

Edited by Ferrarakias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...